Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Others v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Bench: Full Court — 13 Judges (S.M. Sikri CJ, J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, K.K. Mathew, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, A.K. Mukherjea & Y.V. Chandrachud JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a Hindu mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act which sought to impose restrictions on the management of religious property. While the immediate dispute concerned land acquisition, the case raised the constitutional mega-question: does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 — including the power to abrogate fundamental rights entirely? The case arose in the shadow of the Supreme Court's decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), which had held that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights at all. Parliament responded to Golaknath by enacting the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, seeking to restore plenary amending power. Kesavananda Bharati was the direct challenge to those amendments and to the question of the limits of Parliament's constituent power. The matter was heard by the largest bench ever assembled in Indian constitutional history — 13 judges — over 68 days.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368 — including the power to abrogate or take away fundamental rights?
- 2Were the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments constitutionally valid?
- 3What is the correct interpretation of 'amendment' under Article 368 — does it include the power to destroy the Constitution's identity?
- 4Should Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) be overruled?
- 5Is there an implied or inherent limitation on Parliament's amending power — a 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution that cannot be amended?
The Judgment
By a razor-thin majority of 7:6, the Supreme Court delivered the most important constitutional ruling in Indian history. The Court overruled Golaknath (1967) and held that Parliament does have the power to amend fundamental rights. However, the Court simultaneously laid down the 'Basic Structure' doctrine — holding that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 does not extend to abrogating or destroying the 'basic structure' or 'essential features' of the Constitution. The Constitution has an identity that must be preserved. While the Court did not exhaustively define 'basic structure', it identified core elements including: supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secularism, separation of powers, federalism, judicial review, and fundamental rights. The 24th Amendment was upheld; the 25th Amendment's clause removing judicial review of compensation was struck down; the 29th Amendment was upheld.
Key Principles Laid Down
BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE: Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 does not extend to destroying or abrogating the 'basic structure' or 'essential features' of the Constitution. An amendment that destroys a basic feature is void.
AMENDING POWER ≠ CONSTITUENT POWER: Parliament exercising constituent power under Article 368 is a constituted body — it derives its power from the Constitution. It cannot use that power to destroy the very Constitution that created it. The power to amend is not the power to obliterate.
GOLAKNATH OVERRULED: Golaknath (1967) — which held Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights at all — was overruled. Parliament CAN amend fundamental rights, but cannot destroy the basic structure of which certain fundamental rights (like equality, liberty, dignity) are a part.
BASIC STRUCTURE ELEMENTS (non-exhaustive): Supremacy of the Constitution; republican and democratic form of government; secular character; separation of powers; federal character; judicial review; free and fair elections; rule of law; unity and integrity of India; fundamental rights (in their essence).
IDENTITY TEST: The test for whether a constitutional amendment violates the basic structure is whether the amendment alters the identity of the Constitution — whether after the amendment, the Constitution retains the same essential character.
24TH AMENDMENT UPHELD: The 24th Amendment — which restored Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights — was upheld. The Court held Parliament can amend Article 13 to make Article 368 amendments immune from Part III scrutiny — but cannot use that power to destroy basic structure.
CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY OVER MAJORITARIAN POWER: No temporary majority in Parliament — however large — can permanently alter the basic features of the Constitution. The Constitution is a supra-parliamentary instrument binding even on the amending power.
Impact on Indian Law
Kesavananda Bharati is the most consequential judgment in Indian legal history. The Basic Structure doctrine has been the bedrock of Indian constitutionalism for over 50 years. It was immediately tested in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) — where the Court struck down the 39th Amendment which had immunised the Prime Minister's election from judicial review — holding it violated the basic structure of free and fair elections and judicial review. The doctrine was further developed in Minerva Mills (1980), where clauses of the 42nd Amendment giving Parliament unlimited amending power were struck down. Every Constitutional amendment since 1973 has been drafted with Kesavananda in mind. The doctrine is also what ultimately enabled the Supreme Court to strike down Emergency-era amendments. In 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370 but the Constitution Bench affirmed that Kesavananda's basic structure doctrine remains good law. Internationally, Kesavananda has influenced constitutional courts in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and several other jurisdictions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Basic Structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati?
The Basic Structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), holds that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot destroy or abrogate the 'basic structure' or 'essential features' of the Constitution. Core features identified include: constitutional supremacy, democracy, secularism, separation of powers, federalism, judicial review, rule of law, and the essence of fundamental rights. Any constitutional amendment that abrogates a basic feature is void.
What was overruled in Kesavananda Bharati?
Kesavananda Bharati overruled Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), which had held that Parliament has no power whatsoever to amend fundamental rights. Kesavananda held that Parliament CAN amend fundamental rights under Article 368, but cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution — a middle ground between the absolute prohibition in Golaknath and unlimited amending power.
How many judges sat on the Kesavananda Bharati bench and what was the majority?
Kesavananda Bharati was heard by 13 judges — the largest bench in Indian Supreme Court history. The Basic Structure doctrine was adopted by a 7:6 majority. However, the six dissenting judges did not take a uniform position — some agreed on parts of the reasoning. The judgment is technically complex with multiple separate opinions. The 7:6 majority on the core Basic Structure principle is what has defined Indian constitutional law since 1973.
Has the Basic Structure doctrine been upheld in subsequent cases?
Yes, consistently. The doctrine was affirmed and applied in: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) — striking down immunisation of PM's election from judicial review; Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) — striking down unlimited amending power clauses; Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981); L. Chandra Kumar (1997) — affirming judicial review as basic structure; and the Article 370 case (2023) — which upheld the Constitution Bench's authority while affirming the Basic Structure doctrine.
What is the 'identity test' for constitutional amendments under Kesavananda Bharati?
The identity test asks: after the constitutional amendment, does the Constitution retain the same essential character and identity? If the amendment changes the Constitution so fundamentally that it ceases to be recognisably the same Constitution — i.e., it destroys a basic feature — the amendment exceeds the power under Article 368 and is void. The test is not about every change but about changes that transform the constitutional identity.